America's House of Commons on the World Wide Web:
Unabashedly Pro-American, Pro-Christian, and Pro-Freedom!

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Licensure

Five years ago at Eternity Road, I wrote:

A colleague of your Curmudgeon's made a piercing observation the other day. Imagine, he said, that a group of policemen have come to your house determined to execute a warrantless, causeless search and seizure. When you cite your Fourth Amendment guarantee of the right to be free of such, the head cop says, "Okay, just give us $100 and we'll let you be."

Has the cop acknowledged your right to be free of arbitrary invasions of your property, or has he merely extorted you? If the latter, how does this differ from the registration and licensure of guns?

If something is yours by acknowledged right, why should you have to meet conditions to get or keep it? Why should you have to pay a fee or meet extrinsic, State-specified requirements? Especially considering that the fee and requirements are set at the State's pleasure, and can be made so high that practically no one can afford to exercise his "right."

An old anecdote, most frequently attributed to Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), has the philosopher ask an aristocratic Parisienne, "Madame, would you sleep with me for a million livres? When the doyenne responds in the affirmative, Voltaire asks, "Would you sleep with me for five livres? Outraged, the woman screams, "What sort of creature do you think I am?" To which the philosopher calmly replies, "We've already established that. Now I'm trying to determine your price."

Aristotle is nodding as we speak. Inclusion in the category of prostitute does not depend upon how much one charges for one's services. The genus of "prostitute" is "a human being;" the differentia is "who sells sexual services for payment." This is how we define: we make absolute distinctions between some things and others that are unlike them in significant ways. Definitional differences are differences in kind.

Similarly, a right is an absolute possession: a property that inheres in its possessor by reason of his nature. It is not and cannot be conditional. (Defenders of the spurious "right to vote" have a great deal of difficulty with this concept.) If you possess a right, you need no one's permission to exercise it.

By that standard, our governments recognize just about no rights, their lip service to the contrary notwithstanding.

Two California busybodies David Schel and Sharon Tekolian are trying to get Colorado to put an initiative on the November ballot that would require mandatory pre-wedding education before couples could say “I do.”

The proponents, who have chosen lucky Colorado as their first state on which to inflict their scheme, say the intended purpose of the act is to “better prepare individuals going into marriage to fulfill their new roles as spouse and potentially as parent, to furthermore protect children given that marriage is the foundation of a family unit.”...

The California duo’s amendment would require widows and widowers who are remarrying, as well as divorcees, to take the classes. So, let’s get this straight: Millie, age 78, and Sam, 82, met each other after they lost their spouses of nearly 60 years to death. It seems that they, not some therapist certified by the state, could be teaching a class on enduring marriages.

What's particularly risible about this isn't the requirement laid upon elderly Millie and Sam above; it's the idea that a marriage license has any detectable effect in our time. Unilateral no-fault divorce is available to spouses in every state in the Union; therefore, no marriage contract is enforceable against an unconsenting party. More, there is no de facto way to compel a connubially-inclined couple to apply for a marriage license, as no state enforces a law against fornication any longer. More still, "palimony" precedents and parental rights and responsibilities granted to non-spouses as remote as sperm donors have utterly effaced any legal import pertaining to the married state. So what's the point?

Comrades! Much evil has been done by the NRA and gun-toting non-persons who seek to undermine the power and authority of The Party™. Indeed, reactionary scum have shot up malls and schools, in clear defiance of posted signs and laws prohibiting murder and weapon possession. The solution of course is simple, and will enhance state security.

All persons shopping at a mall must undergo a strict background check, be issued a shopping license, and demonstrate good cause for entering a mall.

Unlicensed persons will be refused entry to a mall, which will reduce crime, as only licensed shoppers will be inside the mall.

Children will be taken out of schools, and placed in high security education camps, where only authorized persons will be permitted entry and access to The Children™.

Parents who cannot secure a visitation permit will not be allowed access to their children until after they graduate.

These common-sense safety measures are needed to end all mall and school shootings across America. After all, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.

Funny, yes...until you reflect that the reasoning is identical to the reasoning for the imposition of a licensure regime upon any and every human activity that falls into the State's clutches.

Licensure, when it first appeared, applied to very few things: mainly the practice of medicine and law. The rationale was "the public safety:" the protection of the layman from the quack practitioner of little or no actual skill. That rationale now applies to trades as unthreatening as the braiding of hair.

A case from some years ago, to which I was privy simply as an observer, involved a state official in Massachusetts who entered a unisex hair salon and demanded service. The attendant on duty politely asked if he could wait for the specialist in his sort of hair, who was expected to arrive shortly. When the official saw the attendant give immediate service to a subsequent arrival, he had the state police shut down the salon, invoking the state's licensure laws for his authority.

Yes, the official was a Negro.

Whether it goes by licensure, permittage, or any other name, the imposition of State selectivity upon the exercise of one's rights is merely a back-door method for denying those rights. The denial need not be uniform across all persons; indeed, that's seldom the case. To make a licensure regime palatable, there must be a licensed or "grandfathered" group of practitioners to whom the State can point and say "See! You still have your rights; just do as they do and get a license!" That privileged group acquires an interest in maintaining the regime, especially in those cases where the ability to earn depends upon the possession of a license.

This is not free enterprise as I understand the term. But as bad as that is -- and it's very bad; ask the women who tried to make a living braiding hair and were told they had to acquire expensive cosmetology licenses before they could do so legally -- when the rationale can be applied to non-commercial activities and arrangements, it acquires a new magnitude of ominousness.

We're already on the way to a licensure regime for parents. Consider the number of cases each year in which "child welfare" workers deprive a parent of his children on the grounds of "the best interests of the child." Consider how difficult and expensive it is to get such an action reversed. Consider how many such abductions have morphed into prosecutions of the parents, as some "expert" succeeded in eliciting "recovered memories" of abuse from those minor children, unshielded against "expert" manipulation by those who love them.

But Schumer has told American parents that they need have no fear: his bill would make the acquisition and use of his trackers entirely voluntary.

This is totally within our ability to change. Perhaps not in every state or community but in many states and communities we could elect politicians who would restore constitutional rights. Elect or appoint DAs who would indict and prosecute officials who violate these rights. Can you imagine the impact it would have across the nation if a handfull of states and communities began prosecuting police and police departments when they cross this line. Then follwo that up in liberal states with coordinated efforts to elect and appoint judges and politicians who are sympathetic to constitutional rights. It would send chills down the spine of the strongest progressive.

I might also point out that Colorado still has common-law marriage on the books. No minimum time of cohabitation is required for such, either. How many people will just go that route if Shel and Tekolian get their way?

OldfartThere is no other way out. Those who romantically advocate revolution are naive. If we can't change this peacefully then we are not going to be able to make it better with violence. You may have the highest ideals in your revolutionary zeal but once it starts it will be coopted by those who would be dictators. I will admit I fully expect us to fail to rise to the occasion and vote out the miscreants because the lure of "free stuff" to the low information voter is too strong. But if we fail there is no viable plan "B".

The tracking device themselves are not evil. I speak as the parent of an 18 year old autistic girl who would run at the drop of a hat, had no sense of danger, and would create distractions so she could escape. We tried various tracking devices and eventually settled on a service dog who was trained to track and find her and also as a companion.

It is not the tracking device that is the issue. It is the intrusive hand of Big Brother.

Anonymous, those who advocate revolution are not necessarily naive at all.If revolution produces another kind of dictator, then in the process scores will have been settled and the people will have sent a reminder that they're not endlessly submissive.Being openly crushed is preferable to dumb semi-voluntary slavery, because open tyranny legitimises any means of resistance.Self-respect demands revolution, whatever the outcome.

Like many you want action, doesn't matter if it is effective or counterproductive you are a man of action. I differ in this very simple way; I want success. I have already confessed I have little hope we will be able to stop this anti-constitutional drive to destruction but instead of anger and reprisal at any cost I want to choose the option that offers the best chance of success. Elect constitutionalist and kick out liberals, progressives and Rinos. Use the courts to press for justice and use the vote to make change where we can.It is so bad that I actually favor voting for the radical commie bitch for president over whomever the Rinos put up. If we are going to fail (which then gives us the opportunity to recover again) I want it clear who caused the failure. I don't want Jeb Bush (who is undoubtedly a good man but too progressive in his views). If the left is going to lead us over the cliff then I want it to be very clear that our demise was caused by the left and their policies and philosophy. But revolution, NO! It will surely end with a total loss of our constitutional Republic.

"Like many you want action, doesn't matter if it is effective or counterproductive you are a man of action."It matters a great deal to me.But I'm old enough, beat up enough and personally experienced enough in the bastardry and betrayal of governments to realise that this beast cannot be de-fanged by careful surgery. It's too late for that.Government alone is not the problem now. Government plus bureaucracy plus apathy plus ignorance plus a vast welfare class plus - I'm sure you can add the rest yourself - is the problem.To imagine that the current crop of those and the system they've put in place can be reformed or overturned without violence wishful thinking.Yes, I am (or rather was) a man of action and that taught me that things can go horribly, bloodily wrong in the blink of an eye, so I don't approach this problem from any romantic revolutionary perspective.But if we want to regain some semblance of liberty it will be through bloodshed and sacrifice. All else is dreaming and wishful thinking.(and a nick would be a courtesy on your part,don't you think?)

I've just rejected a set of comments that were insulting to other readers and not germane to the issue at hand. If that's the way the conversation here is about to turn, comments to this post are closed.